What "insurrection?" ?!

[Can]

People who had served in military would understand this better but...it is Insurrection all right...Most movie/tv productions ignore basic facts about military...like when your superior gives you a DEFINITE order with clear instructions you just say "Yes Sir" and obey it. You do not question it....You do not evaluate it in moral terms...You just go and do it. It might be disgusting , terrible something you can not agree or bring yourselves to do but if you are a link in chain of command you have no right or freedom to object or question your supeior officers judgement. That's military life. Yes Starfleet might have peaceful aims like exploration , diplomacy , scientific research but here military hierarchy steps in....

Admiral Doughtey gave Picard a clear and definite order : Leave Brior Patch and do not interfare with Ba'ku relocation. Picard and his crew did not just ignore him. They deliberately disobeyed him and acted to sabotage relocation operation ( of course due to right moral and principle reasons. )....In fact I am suprised there were no fallouts for Picard and his crew after events in Insurrection....After everything happened in Briar Patch best Picard could hope would be demotion and disciplinary action for his crew if not court martial. (especially in time of war) Federation Council and Starfleet probably did not wish to spread this incident in the middle of Dominion War...It would be demoralizing for Federation at best....

 

[DonIago]

I rather thought military officers were supposed to consider the morality of their orders before blindly obeying...but granted I've never served.

 

[BillJ]

At the end of the day, I don't think Insurrection gives us enough information to make an informed decision whether the actions of Dougherty and the Federation were right or wrong. YMMV.

 

[T'Girl]

You do not question it....You do not evaluate it in moral terms...You just go and do it.

You're over stating the principal. A soldier is taught not to obey a obviously illegal order, and receives instruction as to what is and isn't such.

Picard received a lawfully order through his chain of command that originated within the civilian government. He personally didn't agree with and choose to disobey that order.

Janeway said that there are 47 sub-orders to the Prime Directive, suggesting that it isn't a absolute, but a government policy with variables that is subject to periodic re-interpretations.

Discussions between the Enterprise D's officers during episodes Symbiosis and Pen Pals shows that exactly what the Prime Directive means isn't completely clear even among senior Starfleet officers.

(especially in time of war)

An important concideration.

 

[kkozoriz1]

"I was only following orders" was established to be an invalid defense many years ago.

The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

 

[BillJ]

"I was only following orders" was established to be an invalid defense many years ago.

But Picard was disobeying orders before he even knew there was an issue on the Ba'ku planet.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

At the end of the day, I don't think Insurrection gives us enough information to make an informed decision whether the actions of Dougherty and the Federation were right or wrong. YMMV.

According to every principle the Federation has ever been shown to possess/proclaim, they were ABSOLUTELY wrong.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Picard received a lawfully order through his chain of command that originated within the civilian government. He personally didn't agree with and choose to disobey that order.

Atrocities of this sort cannot be made "legal" by any act of Legislature or Potentate. 1) The Federation's OWN LAWS forbid it. 2) higher moral law forbids it even if the Federation's laws did not.

Everything the Nazis did was 100% legal by the "law of the land" as passed by the Reichstag and signed by Hitler, the legally elected leader of the government.

Yes, I keep using the Nazi analogy, because that is EXACTLY what is being presented by far too many posters in this thread: the facist notion that the Baku were slaves to the mighty Federation state whose needs and perogatives (as decreed by their legislature) absolutely and forever took precedent over the Baku's sovereign rights over their own lands, and their own lives.

 

[DonIago]

You do realize that "legality" and "morality" are two entirely different and not necessarily related concepts, right?

 

[BillJ]

It always seems the bad Star Trek movies provide more long term entertainment than the good ones.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

You do realize that "legality" and "morality" are two entirely different and not necessarily related concepts, right?

Not at the level of action we are discussing here. The very concept of an act that rises to a level of a "war crime" or a "crime against humanity" (which is what forced relocation is) is fundamentally a gross violation of human rights and human morality that transcends the boundaries of law and treaty and enters the realm of that which can no better be described as fundamentally WRONG, in other words, immoral.

 

[DonIago]

Yes...well, I'll just say that I'm not sure the word "legal" means what you think it means.

It is my understanding that -any- action can be considered legal if the governing system encodes it as such. Morality isn't part of the equation. The Feds had the legal right to do what they did to the Baku if their legal documents allowed it. While the argument that what they did may have been prohibited by their legal documents holds some weight, the government would of course be empowered to allow for exceptions to those documents as well...or change them...based on whatever procedures the documents laid out for doing so.

The later "A Time to..." books actually discuss how the UFP President had been taking on increased amounts of powers normally handled through the Federation Council during the Dominion War, in ways which may not have been strictly legal...or moral...but which the council also allowed to go forward due to the circumstances (i.e. a huge war) that they were in at the time. Post DW the Council found itself struggling to restore equilibrium between the Executive and Legislative branches of the UFP government.

 

[zar]

Not at the level of action we are discussing here. The very concept of an act that rises to a level of a "war crime" or a "crime against humanity" (which is what forced relocation is) is fundamentally a gross violation of human rights and human morality that transcends the boundaries of law and treaty and enters the realm of that which can no better be described as fundamentally WRONG, in other words, immoral.

Yes, it is *fundamentally* wrong. Just like killing is fundamentally wrong and disobeying a superior's orders is fundamentally wrong. If all we knew was the fact that a forced relocation was happening, everyone would rightly assume that it's wrong. But if all we knew was the fact that Picard disobeyed an order, everyone would rightly assume that Picard was wrong. Of course, it's never that black and white, is it? You need to consider the surrounding situation. You're saying that Picard was right to do something that would normally be considered wrong, yet Dougherty isn't afforded that same flexibility. You're just saying "it's wrong, PERIOD." And that's not fair.

BillJ is right though, there is too much missing information to determine who was right... which means the movie didn't do its job of getting us on Picard's side, we have to just give him the benefit of the doubt. From the little information that we do have, Picard's argument wasn't very convincing to me.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

You're saying that Picard was right to do something that would normally be considered wrong, yet Dougherty isn't afforded that same flexibility. You're just saying "it's wrong, PERIOD." And that's not fair.

Good. It's not supposed to be fair.

Dougherty is subject to extra scrutiny here because *he started this whole thing*. Picard wouldn't have NEEDED to violate orders if it weren't for him.

 

[Cepstrum]

I guess my whole point was that violating orders isn't an insurrection: it's insubordination, acting illegally, or even a mutiny. But an insurrection is an attempt to take over/overthrow the government, not just disobeying a superior's orders.

Picard never indicated he planned to stage a full-scale rebellion against the UFP or even Starfleet.

 

[BillJ]

You're saying that Picard was right to do something that would normally be considered wrong, yet Dougherty isn't afforded that same flexibility. You're just saying "it's wrong, PERIOD." And that's not fair.

Good. It's not supposed to be fair.

Dougherty is subject to extra scrutiny here because *he started this whole thing*. Picard wouldn't have NEEDED to violate orders if it weren't for him.

Picard violated orders before he ever knew what was happening. He was suppose to be going to the Goren system... he blew that off. He was ordered by Dougherty to send Data's schematics... he blew off that order and went into the Briar Patch instead.

 

[zar]

Dougherty is subject to extra scrutiny here because *he started this whole thing*. Picard wouldn't have NEEDED to violate orders if it weren't for him.

Okay, but there's a difference between "extra scrutiny" and complete inconsideration. You and darkwing are basically saying that any justification for Dougherty is AUTOMATICALLY invalid because his decision is "fundamentally wrong". I can only concede that Picard may have been right because there are too many unknowns (to us the viewers). But I cannot agree with the sentiments expressed in statements like darkwing's:

"Even if it WAS the only way, it doesn't change the fact that the Federation had no right to take the Baku's planet. PERIOD."

or your:

"Principles should be absolute, or they do not exist at all."

Your hearts are certainly in the right place but I find this completely unacceptable. The logic of the above quotes would also condemn self-defense killing and a million other things that you readily accept in Star Trek and elsewhere. NOTHING is absolute. Laws are created by fallible mortals.